We want to ask you for input: We know from past campaigns that we win when the Internet community reaches out and engages a critical mass of Internet users in the cause.

What do you think is the best way to stop these threats to Internet freedom? How can we best reach and engage more people in the battle to stop Big Media lobbyists and bureaucrats from censoring expression online?

All of these closed-door agreements threaten an open and affordable Internet – they are being shaped by lobbyists working for outdated businesses without public input.

Internet freedom organizations and advocates have worked hard to insert your voices into these secretive negotiations. In July of last year we confronted TPP negotiators in San Diego with nearly 100,000 petition signatures gathered by the StopTheTrap.net Coalition (more than 25,000 citizens have since signed).

The TPP and other international agreements continue to move forward. We need a plan, and the best ideas have always come the Internet community. How are we going to stop politicians and trade lobbyists from restricting our use of the Internet? Please give us your best ideas!

The Internet community has overcome some amazing odds to stop threats to our digital rights. Let’s do it again.

While VPN's are an effective means to protect oneself from spying and other intrusions. With the introduction of ACTA again... how long do we really have until VPN's are considered illegal, and if that ever happens what other methods of protection can you recomend. Please explain for both the tech savvy like my self, and other not technological people.

Hi, and thanks for your question. I don't see VPNs becoming illegal per se by most countries because they are so routinely used by business. However, Iran's "Supreme Council of Cyberspace" has of course said that non-registered VPNs will be illegal -- completely obviating the point. At a recent conference at UNESCO, even, nobody could manage to make their VPN work (and if my tech savvy colleagues can't, I certainly couldn't help you with an alternative to proxy servers+VPNs, I'm sorry. Perhaps someone else can.)

In the TPP there will be a provision dealing with the free flow of information. It should be accompanied by countries' agreement to not interfere with individuals' right to privacy.

I agree that it will be difficult to make VPNs illegal, though I have spoken to a hill staffer who has claimed that he has a bill ready and waiting to "outlaw encryption" and that he's just "waiting" for the right opportunity for it. This is, of course, ridiculous and impossible, but I wouldn't put it past some of these folks to try to figure out a way to outlaw VPNs for personal use. If it comes to that, people need to SPEAK OUT LOUDLY. That would be a much bigger deal than SOPA or CISPA or anything like it.

In terms of technological alternatives... I actually wonder if they went so far as to seek to outlaw VPNs if we'd move that much further towards fracturing/fragmenting the internet, such that we'd see a rise of more "darkweb" pools and pockets, where people "in the know" would hang out via encrypted/tor-enabled setups, outside the prying eyes of the rest of the public.

oh wow that is a fantastic primer. Thanks for bringing that into the conversation Kevin. She is bang on with this statement, "The business of trade policy must be dragged into the light, demystified, and disentangled from the special interests that currently determine their agenda."

While I'm here, I've got a question. When the U.S. Congress considers a law we hate, Americans have a very clear course of action to stop it: to call their representatives and state their opinions. That practice stopped SOPA. I think it could work on CISPA, if enough people participated. It's how the government's designed to work.

But these trade agreements aren't decided by our elected officials. They're decided by the U.S. Trade Rep, who's appointed by the President. That means it's far tougher for us to feel our interests are being represented. How do we influence the USTR's actions like we would with elected officials?

Hey Kevin, we see your conundrum: the USTR is fairly well insulated from the public's input on issues like TPP. While it's unclear to me, at least from a CDN perspective, how you might approach the USTR, what is clear is the larger problem of governments slipping unpopular (and important) bits of law through backdoor trade agreements like TPP -- pieces of legislation that, as you rightly point out with SOPA, could be stopped dead in their tracks if people are given an opportunity to speak. This speaks to the need for public input into these decisions, as well as an overhaul of how these agreements are negotiated, in general. How are we to expect democracy to function if we learn more about our future from leaked documents than tabled legislation? Thanks for your questions, it raises a great issue.

Hey Kevin. The role of the USTR is an interesting one, for sure. Being in Canada, I'm not especially well versed in how that office operates, and so can't really offer much in the way of what might be done to influence it. But this raises a question: The USTR is becoming increasingly influential when it comes to Canada's approach to trade agreements. In the case of the TPP, the previous Rep singled out the privacy laws of British Columbia and Newfoundland as potential barriers to the free flow provisions of the agreement. More recently, when the USTR asked the Canadian government to get in line with ACTA in a recent report, they basically jumped at the opportunity. Almost immediately, they tabled Bill C-56, which is basically an ACTA compliance bill.

Given this kind of influence, I wonder if a tactical priority in the fight against trade agreements might be for American advocates and organizations to help allies in other countries (like Canada) get a better sense of the powers of the USTR? If we had a better sense of what that office actually looked like/how it functioned, we might be able to find some parallels up here and so offer strategies for organizing.

Hey Kevin, the USTR situation is a bit tricky, but there are a few things to note. First of all, the USTR does often seek public comment. Those comments tend to be dominated by industry folks and lobbyists, but in talking to people at the USTR they insist that they really, really want to hear from the public. In a recent email to me, someone at the USTR claimed "we meet with just about anybody who asks to meet with us." I have no idea how true it is, but might be worth putting to the test.

Of course, if you believe that the USTR is never going to really listen to the public, a better course of action is to focus on Congress. Part of the problem here is that Congress has abdicated much of its role in overseeing. The executive branch, constitutionally-speaking, does have the authority to propose and negotiate treaties, but it is supposed to be with consent from the Senate. Similarly, under the Commerce Clause, only Congress has the authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries. Tragically, Congress often avoids doing its job on that front. This is made even more complex by the hodgepodge of tricks that everyone pulls. There are "treaties" "trade agreements" "executive agreements" and more -- and in practice, they're all basically the same damn thing, but the different names are used to avoid having to get Congressional approval.

If Congress actually did what it was supposed to do and spoke up about its own authority against the President, it would be harder for the USTR to do what it's been doing. The problem, honestly, is that many in Congress aren't even fully aware of all of this. Just last week, in talking to some Congressional staffers, they were explaining how they were exploring international trade agreements and law for the first time ever when they realized that fixing the silly cell phone unlocking / DMCA issue might not even be "allowed" under international agreements.

And that takes us to the next point: the executive branch is technically NOT ALLOWED to constrain the legislative branch in this matter. If Congress wants to, it can pass laws that reject everything the USTR has signed us onto. It is their prerogative. It is politically difficult, because lobbyists will bitch and complain, but they can do it. If the will of the people is behind them, it can happen.

Finally, though, if the USTR sees that Congress might actually stand up, with the support of the public, it'll put immeasurable pressure on the USTR to negotiate a more reasonable deal. The USTR hates to admit how embarrassing the ACTA situation has been, and they're hoping to avoid it with TPP/TAFTA and others, but there needs to be a lot more public attention on all of this to make that happen.

So I would focus on speaking out, speaking to Congess, and even, yes, trying to speak to the USTR.

What everyone else said :) Michael Masnick makes a great point that the USTR does seek public input. I'd add that they are supposed to work for the American public so can be subject to pressure. Same goes for the FCC on other key issues. As Masnick put it "if the USTR sees that Congress might actually stand up, with the support of the public, it'll put immeasurable pressure on the USTR to negotiate a more reasonable deal."

I'd also add that certainly if Obama feels that the he's losing political capital due the TPP being negotiated under his leadership, he can encourage the USTR to change its approach. So there are multiple targets but at the end of the day it does come down to getting a critical mass engaged in this issue so that it's clear that there is political capital at risk for all of these players.

Oh yeah, one other point on all of this: new leadership is coming to the USTR! Ron Kirk is stepping down and we should SPEAK OUT LOUDLY in favor of good candidates and against bad candidates. We need candidates that recognize the importance of an open and free internet.

Since people are being shy, I'll kick some stuff off with a question. Under what authority are internet issues being included in these trade agreements? In almost every case, rather than being about increase "free trade" they seem to be about protectionism for certain key industries.

Good point. They do appear to be about protectionism in a lot of ways and the copyright chapter definitely appears to fit the mold here. But more than that it appears these agreements are vehicles for old media conglomerates to get laws put in place to restrict Internet freedom that they couldn't get in place democratically at a national level -- like SOPA in the US. On top of that, these agreements are also a way for US media companies in particular to get other countries to at the very least adopt the US approach to copyright in the DMCA.

By the very fact that this (these) agreements are negotiated behind a veil of secrecy makes them off limits to the average citizen. By default thats protection someone else's rights over mine. Since its common special interest groups representing pharmaceutical, media and industrial firms I would guess that is who is stealing the law making process from the Congressional branch. (Congress)

Internet control would be an excellent way to beef up their already dominating effect on national and local news. Since these very groups have held sway for the last 200 years (with short breathers of anti monopoly activism lasting 10 or so years) this will be an uphill battle. (like always)

Speak up! So much of this happens because negotiations on international trade agreements sound boring and yet they have a massive impact on the ability of countries to make laws. The entertainment industry figured this out decades ago, and the more they can do without people paying attention, the more they're able to control things. Speaking up, paying attention and letting policymakers know that (1) we're watching and concerned and (2) that we won't accept backroom deals designed to favor legacy industries and (3) that internet freedom is both important and shouldn't be subject to these kinds of negotiations, the more likely it is that the public can stop this practice of hiding such nefarious activity within these agreements.

If I understand the treaty problem its the executive department wants to write law in spite the fact it is prohibited from doing just that. It is unconstitutional, for two reasons, in that only congress can make law and also the closed door nature of such treaties.

Since these funky agreements will be likely ruled unconstitutional in the (hopefully near) future its more like shooting ourselves in the international foot. Why give advantage away? No way I believe any of these treaties are really against terrorism or counterfeiting.

We have no other defense but in changing the public perception of what we think of one branch (Executive) of government overriding another's (Congressional) functions. However. Since our generation has, so far miserably, failed how about teaching our kids our fallibility and helplessness in this area? Such a challenge would encompass being able to admit a weakness to our family which would indeed be a hard thing.

The nuances of bureaucracy are hard to get and maybe by explaining it to our kids they can help us sort it out like they often do with our digital device ignorances. Without a technical or political background this may be the best way.

Questions to ask your kids: What is freedom and how does that relate to international treaties (like ACTA and PPT) and the law making process of congress? What about inter-agency infighting? A great primer to real life political backstabbing. Protectionism is a hard concept to teach without understanding free market economics telling us why it is bad. Why do we regularly dismantle monopolies?

Will kids become cynical of government? I hope so.

Besides voicing off my opinion today this is my best plan for tomorrow. Better put; What way to say this “international Executive branch treaty overriding Congressional branch law creation” makes an impact on the average voter? Such a mouthful no way the average citizen will ever listen to it.

Perhaps "We have separation of powers for a reason - this illustrates why."

Interestingly enough, in New Zealand there is no separation of powers. The Courts cannot declare a law unconstitutional. The Prime Minister is part of the legislative body. You also have virtually no opportunity to weigh in on the implementation of treaties.

There's a lot in there! First up, it's not quite as simple as you describe. The Executive branch DOES have the authority to propose and negotiate international agreements, but it is supposed to get Congressional approval for them (see elsewhere for my discussion on the differences between executive agreements, trade agreements and treaties, as that matters quite a bit).

Whether or not these agreements are ruled unconstitutional... that seems unlikely. The agreements themselves are not. It's possible that it may be ruled that laws under such agreements ARE unconstitutional, but that might be difficult to prove.

Also, technically, Congress is not LEGALLY constrained by these trade agreements. They are politically constrained. What we need is for more in Congress to recognize that, and to push back, making it clear to the White House/USTR that it won't accept bad agreements, even if it makes future trade partners nervous to negotiate with the USTR. If the USTR negotiates a bad deal for the American public, well then, too bad, Congress should slap them down. But Congress needs to be reminded that it has this power, because it seems to forget.

If you're looking for a simplified way of saying all this, perhaps it's something along the lines of: Congress is the people's representative in the federal government. The USTR, who negotiates these treaties, is the representatives of a number of "industry advisory committees" who are often made up of some of the oldest, stodgiest, least-interested-in-changing businesses out there. When the USTR is enabled to put through agreements without careful Congressional oversight, what we get are attempts to prop up old businesses at the expense of the public and of the new and innovative services they love.

The public is reasonably worried about "crony capitalism" in which industries focus on protecting their turf, rather than innovating. And the trade agreement process in one in which that happens all the time. Congress is supposed to represent the people, and Congress needs to speak up against this -- and the only way that's going to happen is if the people tell Congress that this is their will.

Am at my limit of government and bureaucratic awareness (thank you I learn by reading your response) but not of the maneuvering required to win propaganda warfare. (your good detail forces me to get to the meat)

I understand a bit of the rationalization for the Executive branch to justify their actions but at the level of doublespeak and political maneuvering it still seems to me that it is an end justifies the means approach for the Executive branch. I cannot see any reason that the Congressional branch would not be furious over such a forced bunny rabbit out of the hat trick.

What is the difference of the vice president (leader of the house?) delivering a speech telling all the house members what to do or a remotely decided trade treaty also telling them what to do?

It would be advantages to, position arguments that, count on the selfish preservation of the Congressional branch to counter the Executive branch's run around of their ever decreasing domain of political power. (the Executive branch is really looking powerful these days.) It may seem weak at first but infighting between branches and agencies may be a good tactic. How do we encourage such?

It is such a powerful idea that even if both branches know about opposition awareness it wont matter. Power has its own allure beyond common sense. Even special interest groups will be divided as they cater to whatever popular interest is available to them. (its actually all they can do.) Its obvious that government is blinded by power. Use that.

Yes. People/we need to voice our opinions but guidance/leadership is needed to focus on specific goals. Example: Did anyone actually understand Martin Luther King? No way! But his passion, vision and articulation of that was enthralling.

Change topic track: You have redefined my original question “how do we describe our efforts/goal of preserving free sharing of culture” (my own redefinition) with your knowledge. We still need to find another redefinition that resonates with popular public feelings.

My aim has been the genesis that sharing of culture will somehow create/provide greatness for our nation. Admittedly its a way far off dream/goal but such is that which drives humans and popular culture.

Hmm I got a radical plan up my sleeve. According to my research regarding TPP, YouTube partners can be seriously impacted under TPP. Ergo, it is best that you also target videogame LPers who have a Youtube partnership as well as viewers who are viewing such content. TPP would make Youtube Partnerships illegal since LPers are gaining money through uploading videogame footage. These issues hit hard for gamers and their fans.

I think this is a great idea. YouTube partners, be they gamers, musicians, comedians, or otherwise, usually have very dedicated fan communities who feel a real sense of ownership over and connection to the work of the partner. I think if a clear case can be made to partners that outlines how their relationship with their fans could be undermined by the TPP, a really huge group of passionate, engaged, digitally-savvy people could be engaged in a hurry.

UPDATE: I pmed one LPer about TPP and he is already alarmed on how TPP will impact the LPing community. He said he will post a video on it, thus the link to the video will be provided to you in the comment thread.

You are very welcome, while we are at it I got another idea to motivate teens and younger audiences. If funding permits create an OpenMedia scholarship fund. This allows aspiring high school activists to fund for their post secondary education while advocating to keep the Internet open. This closer liberates high school and university students from student debt thus accumulated savings enable these students to foster Canadian innovation and also contribute more of their savings into leading meaningful lives.

I think that these sorts of attacks - these attempts to legalize restrictions on the citizens' use of the internet - will continue ceaselessly until laws are passed that guarantee those freedoms.
I am not sure how to do it, but I think lobbying for laws that cement internet freedoms and rights would be the only solution that will work long-term.

We totally agree. And unfortunately, these attacks will probably continue even if we are able to get comprehensive laws that protect our rights. The Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect us, but has been eroded by bad policy. It's important that the movement is proactive in agitating for good legislation that protects our online rights, but perhaps even more important that we're proactive about getting organized and making sure we can sound the alarm when something bad happens. One thing we've built to try to help with that is the Internet Defense League. We're doing an action tomorrow on CISPA. You can learn more here: http://www.internetdefenseleague.org

As I've suggested above, we have to look to the global level. When you look at broader human rights, these were cemented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although this was a non-binding instrument, it was extremely influential, and strongly influenced the development of the later (binding) International Covenants on human rights.

So we need a similar non-binding statement or principles for the Internet, that can constrain the abuse of our rights and freedoms online. Actually there are already a lot of such statements, but they are not authoritative because they are not global. Only with the imprimatur of a global body like the Internet Governance Forum will such a statement become adequately persuasive on policy-makers.

There are efforts underway now to create a compendium of existing statements of Internet governance principles within a working group of the IGF, which I think we should support. We should also support efforts to strengthen the IGF so that this multi-stakeholder body can form non-binding recommendations of its own, that would be used to fight against bad proposals when they come up.

Much like climate change, one of the big challenges in engaging the public in international trade agreements is precisely that they are INTERNATIONAL (i.e., big, lofty, confusing, involve dozens of parties, etc.) -- it becomes hard to imagine their scope!

I would like to imagine strategies that try to localize the effects of these trade agreements, by making reference to materials and activities rooted in local communities and everyday lived experience. For example, how would the TPP's Fair Use/Dealing changes effect the Internet in our classrooms, our libraries, our wikis, etc.?

A campaign idea could lead with a statement describing an activity the TPP would make difficult, rooted in a local everyday situation, and then ask citizens to respond with images, Tweets, or submissions through http://OpenTheTpp.net/.

An example could be: "The TPP will make use of copyrighted materials for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research even more restrictive. How does that affect your classroom?" Or "...your library" or "...your YouTube account" "...your community wiki"? This may help connect with people in a more concrete way.

Agreed, Josh. I think one of the most interesting reactions I've seen to this new slate of agreements has come from people who work with information and records every day. Information professionals like librarians and archivists are acutely aware of the social and cultural value of fair access but incredibly alert to the threats posed by new, unaccountable restrictions on intellectual property. They're in their field because they're passionate about it--already engaged and on the sort of hyper-local front lines where effects are going to be directly felt. They're a great resource and a very valuable community.

This is a hard one because there's multiple multiple threats at different levels (National and International). Basically business and government institutions that dominated the industrial era see the Internet as a threat and there's many ways they are trying to maintain control.

I think the biggest threat at the moment is the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. The fact that it's being negotiated in secret with old media conglomerates given special access to the process while people and innovative businesses are locked out is one reason for concern. The leaked draft also suggests massive threats to free expression online and our privacy. To make matters worse, this agreement will blanket this Internet censorship regime onto 12 countries at once and it appears that they are hoping to continually add new countries as time goes on. It could very well end up being a global agreement at some point in the future.

Other than online petitions and making a phone call to my critters in Washington DC. How can I help? It seems that no matter how vocal I am these things keep coming up in one form or another. If its not ACTA its TPP or CISPA or some combination of both.

The petitions and calls have a big impact so that's for doing your part! Basically we stop these things when there's a critical mass of voters who speak up. So the name of the game is outreach. Here are some resources that can be used to help: http://openmedia.org/tpp/resources

Sharing the petition with everyone you know online is one thing. You can also print it out and get people in your community/work place to sign it. You'll also find infographics and other things you can share online in the link above.

Apart from that if you're game you could try to arrange a meeting with your rep in Washington and bring along some friends.

That's all I can think of. Do you have any ideas? We find that our best outreach ideas come from the Internet community. Maybe there's a way for us to put out a positive position that shows what we want, and rally people behind that?

(Sorry that I'm late to this discussion, I live on the opposite side of the world.) One thing that I think is important is to do what the industry lobbyists do, and that's to forum-shop. In other words, if we are losing the battle at the TPP and in the US Congress because of corruption in those institutions, we should consider making counterveiling rules elsewhere.

For example, my organisation is currently advocating for additions to the United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection that would protect consumers' interests in digital and online goods and services, such as preventing our fair use rights from being stolen from us with digital locks. The UN Guidelines are being discussed at a UN body called UNCTAD that is traditionally much less dominated by copyright holders than the TPP, US Congress or WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation).

Another example is that there are those who would like to see an expanded role for the Internet Governance Forum in developing high-level policy guidelines relating to the Internet. The IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum in which, once again, copyright holders don't hold as much influence. So it is feasible that we could develop recommendations at the IGF that would limit the abuse of intellectual property rules to inhibit our use of the Internet.

I do acknowledge that these sorts of measures will also meet with resistance in the United States because there is something of a phobia about the United Nations there, but if you do enough research you will find out that the UN actually does a lot of good work and is not dominated by tyrants and despots as the US media makes out. Bodies like UNCTAD and the IGF are actually a lot more receptive to civil society's concerns than the institutions in which Internet and intellectual property rules are now made.

It's so great to have Consumers International in this discussion! Interesting ideas here. I think expanding the role and influences of governance institutions like the IGF that are more responsive the the desires of citizens and civil society is a good idea for sure. That speaks to the need for part of our message being focused on how the TPP is the place to negotiate Internet policy since it's supposed to be a trade agreement - and put IGF forward as a place where such policies should be discussed and developed.

Hi Butcher_Of_Hope. I'm Tyler and I sit on the Board of Directors at OpenMedia.ca as well as the steering committee of the Media Democracy Project here in Vancouver.

I'm on board with the backgrounder above, which identifies this new raft of trade agreements as a major threat to the possibilities of the open internet. But I think that, more than the individual agreements themselves, it's the form of governance that stands behind them that represents the real, structural threat.

Trade agreements like the TPP and ACTA provide a space for national governments and powerful corporate lobbyists to meet behind closed doors, without the input of citizens or advocates. In particular, they allow governments to engage in what's called "policy laundering," a practice whereby unpopular provisions and regulations (in this case around the strict policing of intellectual property and the curtailment of online freedom) get buried in multilateral agreements that voters never have a chance to oppose. It's a fundamentally undemocratic way of enforcing policy agendas that the electorate, by and large, doesn't want. And given that these agendas are being largely shaped by powerful telecom and internet companies with major stakes in maintaining and advancing their control over network content and infrastructure, it's no secret as to who's going to benefit and who's going to lose when they're put in place through trade agreements.

The internet is something we all have a stake in. It's both a tool and a culture that, at it's best, can deepen our commitments to one another and to the values of democratic government. But policy laundering in the form of multilateral trade agreements is a way of shutting us out of that culture and of locking the tools in the cabinets of powerful telecom companies. It's a major threat to the open internet, and it's crucial that the pro-internet community work together to oppose it.

The horse-sized agreements are hard to fight largely because they take place behind closed doors. They're secretive, extreme, and they circumvent national rules to take away our Internet freedom.

I imagine the duck-sized agreements are more likely to be national in scope, and thus a little easier to fight since there are democratic processes at play. Citizens are more directly responsible for putting people in power, and can exercise more power themselves because of that.

Either way though, as long as we have citizens rallying together to use the Internet to save the Internet, we'll defeat threats from horses and ducks alike.

I'm not sure that I agree with the first part of your reply. At least with the horse-size agreements, there is a lot of attention paid to the agreement and it is easier for us as activists to mobilise resources against it. With duck-size agreements, they often slip under the radar. The bad provisions can be slipped into these duck-size agreements more easily, and then there is a precedent for them to be used again.

A good example of this in practice is how the KORUS free trade agreement (Korea and US) is being used as a precedent by industry to demand tougher standards for the TPP. But some of us weren't active in fighting against KORUS at the time, because we may have thought, "Well, I don't really care about Korea, so why does it matter?", or perhaps we didn't even know about it. Yet the repercussions from KORUS are still being felt.

Great point. I guess it does depend in part on how big the ducks are :) You're right that it's easier to rally together and fight the TPP than it is to try to fight the many many bilateral agreements being negotiated right now. It also suggests that it is more important to focus on the TPP, because if we can remove the bad stuff and actually get some positive points in there we might even start to undo the bad provisions in the smaller agreements.

Wouldn't responses to things like the TPP require international support in order to be effective? What can be done, or what is being done, to rally support in relevant nations to bring attention to things like the TPP?

Right now, there is an international coalition called the StopTheTrap Coalition (http://stopthetrap.net) working hard to make sure citizens voices are heard both (i) within the TPP hearings and (ii) in opposition to the TPP hearings. This coalition features groups from Canada, NZ, US, Australia, and many more. In fact, many of the coalition members are being featured in this AMA today. The coalition groups work hard to get into these secretive meetings, with some even displaying citizens TPP-related comments and concerns (collected at http://openthetpp.net/) on the walls of the negotiation conference centres, or have passed around tablet devices displaying them. They also work hard to develop compelling public outreach and educational materials alerting people to the abuses of their digital liberties. This type of international coalition building is a great way to build support for opposition to these invasive backdoor agreements. Thanks for the question!

Absolutely. I think that some of the best and most effective organizing around these sorts of internet/digital freedom issues that's been done over the past several years (at least in Canada) has worked really hard to connect online community to on-the-street actions like protests, petition drops, and good old fashioned postering campaigns.

And again, speaking specifically of Canada--I'd be interested to hear about the situation elsewhere--I think those sorts of protests could benefit immensely from connecting the agreements themselves to broader policy climates. In the case of ACTA, the real absurdity of the new implementation bill that the government has tabled comes from the fact that we've just spent years and years and years developing a sort of okay, but at least democratically-sound copyright regime for Canada. It's far from perfect, but it's at least valid legislation produced through real policy making efforts. But with our new ACTA implementation bill, all that hard work is at risk of being tossed under the bus. We're could end up back at square one.

That kind of narrative--that connects these agreements to bigger questions of domestic policy and sensible, democratic decision making--could be a really powerful coalition builder and a way to build a critical mass for street actions.

Yes, fast track authority absolutely COULD and SHOULD be a vulnerable place to attack. Historically, it's felt more like a rubber stamp from Congress, but the USTR has been negotiating without it (potentially illegally) for some time now, and despite asking for fast-track authority a few times has yet to get it.

And, it's possible to use fast track authority as a wedge from a few different useful angles. Dems are already a bit skeptical of "free trade agreements" (which aren't really free trade agreements anyway). Repubs, who say they're for fast track and free trade agreements, are worried about too much executive power. Everyone in Congress should be reasonably worried about the failure of separation of powers.

Still, I worry that it will still be a rubber stamp issue, because it feels so down in the weeds, policy-wonkish. If there's the ability to use this as a key vulnerability, people need to do a much better job framing it. "Fast track authority" is one thing, but what this really is is Congress abdicating its Constitutional role in regulating international commerce, and ceding it to the executive that has no such power. Everyone -- no matter what affiliation -- should be concerned about that. If the USTR really believes in its policies and the agreement, it should be able to convince Congress that the agreements are necessary and reasonably negotiated.

I'm a huge fan of OpenMedia's work and the causes it represents. I'm an Ontarian in my 20s with a BA in English who is still indecisive about a career direction to pursue fervently, but I have realized that one of my dream jobs would be doing what you appear to do: be a liaison between the public and a cause I believe in.

Hopefully you don't mind me asking these questions since this is in /r/IAmA. It would be amazing to be a part of OpenMedia one day, but does the NPO actually employ anyone other than you, Reilly, Lindsey, and Shea? Will it ever? And in either case, what should I do now to have a chance at joining the team? (I've never sent you a resume because I assume I just don't have the level of experience yet that you'd be looking for.) Currently I'm volunteering for a local charity, helping out on the admin side with their public education department.

We're sticking to four core staff for now, but you never know. My best advice would be to do outreach for a while—share campaigns within your networks, participate on our Facebook page, Google Plus, or Twitter—and demonstrate your leadership skills in public engagement. When we do look for people, we look at people who are active in our community first. Hope this helps!

I think the most important question is: How do we get the average internet user to care about this?

I mean the people that get on the internet and look only at cat pictures, stupid videos, and stream from netflix (o wait..). No, I really mean the Nascar type crowd in the US, the people that don't really understand what the internet means or how these new laws could impact them. I think that unless we're able to convince a high percentage of the population that these laws are bad, will hurt the economy, are the bad type of regulations, and that it will infringe on things people use every day - we will have a long up hill battle.

This is a great question, and one that's at the heart of what we work on every day. Tech policy issues are often somewhat complex at the legislative level -- the trick is putting things in language that feels real and visceral to people. Most people aren't going to get riled up by a website with the headline "Reform ECPA now" but would definitely want to read a site entitled "The government wants toread your email without a warrant."

Thanks, Inuma. This is a great suggestion. It always seems as if we're speaking on "their" terms. Rightsholders have been incredibly powerful in shaping the debate - the word "Piracy" is an example, along with war metaphors - we're always "combatting" or "fighting" pirates, who are associated of course with terrorists and child pornographers. It's been a gradual and consistent training exercise they've maintained and has unfortunately been quite effective.

What you suggest is a wonderful way to counteract that - by not responding to rightsholders within their own morally dubious framework, but by developing a parole that is logically sound, simple and honest that is accessible to people.

I'd be curious to know how you would reframe extension of copyright term - the US has life+70 and is seeking to impose that on New Zealand, which has life+50 at the moment.

At the basis of copyright is human rights and corporate rights. Since I'm aware of the US, I'll use that in this framing:

What should be the focus is on who copyright holders are versus the public's rights. Copyright holders are corporations and estates who seek to pursue private profit. What the public has a right to is to remix, download, or share material.

What has to occur is to make corporations prove their copyright is needed. They must yearly apply for their rights and prove that it is needed over the public's need to share.

Also, a yearly tax on copyright holders might help to seeing the ball in the favor of the public. Making it so that copyright is no longer automatic, and has to be proven, helps to give the public their human rights back.

Admittedly, there could be better framing here, but as a first step, I think it might be best to tell the public their rights and how they were taken away by corporate interests.

As one of the great unwashed masses I'd like to put in my two cents here. I have a folder on my computer that is dedicated just to videos of Nascar races that I've downloaded from the net. Under the TPP that would be illegal or could be, I assume, as I haven't asked for anyone's permission to obtain them. That's what hits home. Humdrum everyday items that people do every day without even thinking about it. Quoting lines from songs in our Facebook posts is another. What does Joe Public use for a banner image in Facebook? Where did he get the picture? Trying to get the idea across to normal everyday people that they have to fight against giant multinational corporations isn't going to fly as well as telling them they are going to be fined big bucks for using the image of album cover art for their Facebook banner.

I definitely agree that this is the question we need to address and the language issue Fight For The Future mentions is really important. One of the best ways to reach more people is for those who do understand how important this stuff is help us reach more people. We've found with other campaigns that some of the most successful campaign items come not from us as an organization but from people on the Internet who reach out to friends and family in a way that they think will resonate. Everyone has their own network and their own unique way of explaining these issue, and unique skills. If everyone who understood the implications of the TPP and other threats put a bit of time into outreach we'd have a much better chance of hitting the right note.

Hey guys. First off, thank you for the incredible work you're doing on promoting this issue. The role of trade agreements in introducing laws and preventing reform is something that I've recently become aware of from working on the unlocking issue & advocating for fixes to §1201. We face similar problems in trying to make reform happen due to FTA's with Korea and other countries that incorporate the DMCA's language and discourage action by supportive lawmakers.

From what I understand, the US Trade Representative is responsible for negotiating deals like this, which are then ratified by Congress. Since I've had a bit of success via We the People petitions, and the USTR is part of the executive branch, could that route have a meaningful impact on some of the closed-door TPP dealmaking?

Sina -- the USTR/Congressional situation is never quite as clear cut as you would think it would be. There are all sorts of games that can be played. For example, ACTA was labeled as a "sole executive agreement" with the claim that it doesn't need any Congressional ratification or approval, since it doesn't change any laws. Of course, the problem with such things is that they can -- effectively, if not legally -- then make it much more difficult to change bad laws.

Then there are so called "trade agreements" which are not considered "treaties." Treaties require 2/3 Senate approval. Trade agreements require a majority of both houses of Congress.

Understanding the differences is important in understanding what we're up against. ACTA was a "sole executive agreement." TPP is a "trade agreement" so i will require a majority in Congress. So the Congressional role here will be important, though the USTR will try to use "fast track authority" to limit Congress' ability to nitpick...

good point - I believe in Canada the TPP does need to be brought before Parliament, but there will be a lot of pressure to pass it into law once it's signed. We also have one party with the majority of votes so if they want they get it unless we get vocal.

I guess in that case the priority is to stop this thing from being signed in the first place ... I wonder if we can use something like http://amicushq.com to gamify to process and get people calling their national trade representatives to demand that they don't sign on? I'm not sure what'll have the most impact, but I'm ready to act once you guys figure out the best choice.

(Very much enjoyed reading through the various threads here and appreciate your comprehensive responses. Thanks for taking the time to do this.)

So the only thing about those Whitehouse.gov petitions is that they are a onetime shot. If you get 100,000 you get a response from Obama, which may or may not be helpful to the cause. And then that's it. You can't contact the people who took action to build a movement or give updates on what's coming next. Also, the privacy policy is a bit concerning. Better to take action on a site from one of the many great advocacy groups that are out there.

That said, every tactic has a time and a place. If there's an issue that a statement from Obama could make a huge difference on, by all means, go for it.

Very much agree that it's a one-time shot. I'm not too familiar with the issue, but it does seem like a statement from Obama might make a big difference in terms of aligning folks in the executive branch on your side, no?

I have a call with the WtP folk tomorrow actually. Would love some ideas that I can pass on to them on how they can improve the process - apparently they've got both read and write APIs planned, which may make future advocacy easier.

In the shorter term, I wonder whether you might be able to wrap the WtP site in an iFrame, and collect people's emails before they pass through to the actual site. You could try to encourage the media and sharing to happen via the wrapper site. Including a note in the petition itself that a separate URL should be used for sharing may help to a degree, too.

I think this is my suggestion for "What do you think is the best way to stop these threats to Internet freedom?" Since the exec branch is doing the negotiating, a WtP petition could be the most effective way of getting the message across to the people involved.

I'd love to help out in whatever way I can if you guys decide to go down this route. If you want to test the iFrame suggestions I'd be glad to give that a try. And if there's something you need from the WtP end to make this more likely, I'd be happy to bring it up with them on the call tomorrow. Or I can perhaps ask for a followup call to see if they can address some of your concerns with WtP more directly.

I have a second question that's been nagging me for a while. There has been talk recently about a digital bill of rights. George Takach, one of the Canadian liberal leadership candidates, advocated for it as well in his platform. What would go into a digital bill of rights, what would it protect exactly, and how could its provisions be enforced in the event that they are violated by a company or a government?

Hi, iDareToDream! The idea of the 'Digital Bill of Rights' has been in different ways by many different groups. In the case of Takach, who recently dropped out of the liberal leadership race, his Digital Bill of Rights spoke to a series of pro-privacy, pro-net neutrality, and otherwise pro-Internet principles that, theoretically, would've been upheld through various policy reforms. However, the exact means by which Takach aimed to realize these goals don't appear to be well articulated in any online materials. In the U.S., a recent example of a digital bill of rights emerged in response to SOPA and PIPA (http://keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights), which outlined an even greater number of principles than the one put forth by Takach.

In short, a digital bill of rights would outline a series of pro-Internet principles that protect the public interest in an increasingly interconnected world. How such a bill would be implemented would vary from country to country.

This is a really good question. Because the Internet is border-crossing, it makes sense that a high-level statement of Internet rights and principles should be global too, although the details of its implementation would differ from country to country. For example it makes no sense to have strong protection for online privacy in just one country, because then all the privacy-infringing online services will just flock to be hosted in another country.

But at the same time if you have global principles, then making them enforceable becomes a lot more difficult and politically fraught. I'm sure you've heard about the WTO case between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States, in which the former countries claimed that the US infringed their trade rights to host online gambling websites, but the US has refused to abide by the WTO's decision on this. If we had an global bill of rights for the Internet, the same thing would happen.

So probably we would enforce the bill of rights mainly through norms, at least to begin with. This means that the bill of rights would have moral force, but initially would not have legal force - if you read above, you'll see that I've given the example of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which began in the same way. But it could be used as a template for the enactment of legally-binding rules at the national level. The UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, also mentioned above, are a practical example of how that can work.

I've also mentioned a process which is already underway at the Internet Governance Forum to develop a compendium of existing statements or Internet governance principles, which could be a first step towards the development of a global digital bill of rights that can be used as a pressure tactic to influence the behaviour of governments and corporations. Before that can go further though, the IGF will need to undergo some reforms to give it the authority to make non-binding recommendations.

The real issues are culture and social growth and how we can share it with our kids and friends without some culture tax regulating the free exchange of ideas. How can we use cultural exchange to allow our society to mature musically and visually as well as intellectually?

If we allow the Internet to be ruled in some unregulated way we risk loosening all of our cultural heritage and history to permanent ownership by others.

For example: the way overboard DMCA take-down method which is so unregulated it can remove any/many controversial political arguments, new music you licensed under creative commons, videos that are 100% clearly fair use, photographs of anything etc. etc. etc. (and I have not even mentioned the large percent of abuse yet!) You even have to fight to overcome the actions with legal letters with no guarantee of success when fighting large media firms with deep pockets.

ALL our culture and EVERYTHING socially related is at risk with policies like this.

Think the draconian DMCA take-down rule is bad just wait till the TPP and other secret trade agreements are forced into effect. Its only a hint of how bad censorship will get.

Since nobody else has responded to this, I'll give it a shot. I agree with you, and I think that there is a lot of scope here for consumer protection law to be beefed up. The TRIPS agreement (which in simple terms is the grand-daddy of the TPP) expressly provides for countries to pass laws to limit the abuse of intellectual property rights. But we don't make enough use of this!

Most countries have only ever made laws that limit the abuse of intellectual property rights in ways that are anti-competitive. But the TRIPS provision isn't limited to that - it's also open for countries to pass laws that limit the abuse of IPRs in ways that infringe consumer rights.

And some countries have done that - for example, I'm Australian, and in my country, it is an offence to make an unjustified claim of copyright infringement. In Europe, it is an offence to sell a DRM-protected product without adequately disclosing the DRM. And so on. So we can do a lot more with this flexibility, and we should pressure our representatives to do so.

I absolutely agree that this is about pushing back against policies that would stifle the possibilities of an open digital future—talking about those possibilities in terms of how we (and future generations) are allowed to learn and share is hugely important.

With all the talk of the facts of TPP, ACTA, TAFTA and CETA (and others too) and their dire consequences on Internet freedom with the immense complexity and foreign influences threatening almost every facet of our daily lives... its hard to pay attention to what we are really fighting for. Our history and how we talk and share it. It forms the culture that defines us as humans. Our heritage.

Our USA forefathers left us a heritage of freedom to share and speak what we feel. While we actually followed it we inspired people throughout the world. What is our legacy to our young family?

(1,2,3. All together now. It's for the kids) -sing-along-

[sorry to be so mushy but culture is a very difficult topic. Its something so integrated and ubiquitous with our lives we take it for granted like air.]

Our, now being digitized, culture represents an unlimited unfettered unclaimed unexplored future and as long as we can share it will be passed downstream. The Internet and its related developments expand and allow sharing in so many more ways it would surely be tragedy to allow the hobbling of it.

Its nice that some other countries have enacted some limitations to DRM (Man I hate reading all the jibe on the game box (shaking it to make sure there is actually a disk inside not a web address) and game sites to identify (and not purchase) DRMed programs.

The secret negotiations with no input at all from the US public make every one of these weird international agreements flat out unconstitutional its hard to put faith into any of them. ACTA is especially bad with every public input ignored at every time. There is no way it represents public opinion regardless of whatever some slick spokesperson says.

Its hard to put faith in TRIPS atm although, the way you describe, it sounds nice but will these IPR abuse limitations allow for the reduction of the now almost eternal copyright terms lasting far beyond the lifetimes of even our kids? It most likely reinforces current terms with no flexibility.

Well thought-out points here. I particularly like this: "The Internet and its related developments expand and allow sharing in so many more ways it would surely be tragedy to allow the hobbling of it." We need to keep that in mind and to remind our friends and family of what's at stake -- our future.

The ability to pirate copyrighted material derives directly from the right to free anonymous speech online. As long as one exists the other will too. Once politicians wrap their head around that they can either decide whether they support free speech or big media interests. I know my vote will always go towards free speech.

You're certainly right that politicians need to decide where their priorities are. Do they care more about protected old media conglomerates with outdated business models, or free speech?

I think it's our job to make the former political suicide - to show that they will lose a critical mass of votes if they don't stand up for our right to free speech.

Although, I would like to add that piracy seems to be more the result of content companies trying to protect and force us into their command and control preference for media distribution. Many people only pirate materials because there's no easy legal way to get some content. There appears to be an inverse relationship with for example the adoption of Netflix and piracy. So really media companies need to just adapt the Internet and stop lobbying for politicians to make the Internet adapt to them.

Thanks for this. The Pirate Party of Canada has definitely been supportive of those working to fight back against these secretive and extreme agreements. I also think those in europe were very active in the anti-ACTA campaigns.

I think when it comes to fighting legislation or trade agreements that would negatively impact privacy or access to information on the Internet, we must recognize that our biggest strength is community. In our case, the online community. We can clearly see this if we look at the SOPA blackout, StopSpying.ca, and virtually any other campaigns for affecting legislation. The success of these efforts have always rested on two things: The ability to spread awareness and the ability for the public to present a united front. So when we ask "how do we stop current and future anti-Internet trade agreements?" to me the answer seems to be that we must build community. I propose the creation of an online forum-oriented community geared towards raising awareness, collective organizing, and acting as an online think tank for developing projects for fighting for Internet freedom. A global Internet activist community open to the public. If promoted through renown pro-Internet organizations such as OpenMedia.ca and the EFF, such a community would have little difficulty gathering supporters.

Secondly, we must look at how we can provide people with the knowledge to directly protect their online privacy and freedom, even in the event of these trade agreements being ratified. This can be accomplished by teaching people about encryption. This however presents it's own challenge, as encryption tools often have a steep learning curve that must be overcome before they can be used. So for encryption to be a viable tactic that can be promoted to the general public, it must be presented with both secure tools and instructions that are easy to understand. For this I propose a very simple and intuitive interface that presents two options, "Chat privately" and "Surf anonymously". Upon the user selecting either option, the interface would determine their operating system and then redirect them to the instructions for installing and using either Off-the-Record or Tor (for chatting and surfing, respectively). People need a reason to use Tor though, and for this reason I propose putting an emphasis on hidden services. A good collection of information on hidden services can be found on Reddit's r/onions subreddit:

Wow - This is is so well said! I totally agree with this assessment: "The success of these efforts have always rested on two things: The ability to spread awareness and the ability for the public to present a united front. So when we ask "how do we stop current and future anti-Internet trade agreements?"

The forum idea is great. We do try to provide this forum using social media like reddit posts, Facebook Canada/International, our websites Canada/International, and other social media. But it sounds like you're talking about a separate online forum that is easy to access and not dependent on another platform. I totally agree and it's something I'd like us to build! That sounds like a major effort that might take some time but I'll bring it back to the OpenMedia team and see how we can move forward.

I totally agree with the tools to protect online privacy. Some of our community have participated in Cryptoparties, but I really like the interface idea. I think you are exactly right that we need to make these tools easy to understand and use.

Social media is great and a key tool in the dissemination of information related to OpenMedia.ca campaigns. This was pretty well covered in your article "How We Use the Internet To Save the Internet". A forum dedicated to fostering an online community of Internet activists would be different in that it would allow for information from the bottom-up like an open source project. This would allow supporters to get more involved with OM and Internet activism in general, and give them a space to plan and organize activism. Allowing supporters to be a part of the organizing and build community in this manner could foster a powerful feeling of comradery and allegiance to the Internet, and give a lot of people an outlet to fight.

I totally agree. We've been relying on Facebook for this up to now but it just doesn't cut it. We have a few drupal projects in the pipeline (like upgrading our .ca site to D7), but I'll encourage our team and volunteers to get moving on a forum as you suggest. Shouldn't be a problem to get moving on this. Thanks again for the helpful input.

Maybe what is needed are local internet associations that can accumulate members who will act politically to ensure their MP is aware of the numbers of voters who will vote for another candidate should further abuses of power persist. We are the ones that put them there. Once an association is set up, a letter can be drafted to show opposition to this treachery. I know the MP in our riding will bend over to an angry mob but will do anything to see this anti occupy movement ruin our freedom on the web. It should also be mentioned that it is the people who build the code that everyone uses and that government has benefited from Open Source and freedom on the web. Maybe its time to shut down the things Government uses that we built for them? And big business; they also take advantage of others sacrifices to have an internet that helps them worldwide. Wikipedia needs to go down again for a few days to show these evil men that they depend on things they dont understand. Another way would be to build new encrypted code that shuts them out. Who are they to say what can and cant be shared?

Since I'm personally against unrestrained freedom (don't get me wrong, there are gutter-mouthed rebels, criminal hoodlums, and shameless prostitutes in the world as we speak), I roll my eyes in the presence of liberal policies.
OK, enough drifting from my mind, I have a few questions in mind:

I think everyone is against "unrestrained freedom." The question is which constraints on freedom should we have and not have in our society.

In some countries one restriction is you can't criticize the government. Bad restriction. In this country and most, you can't murder or speed or defame, etc.

So your questions.
1a. Terrorism. As usually defined (to target civilians with violence to send a political message), it's really really bad. Of course, some say one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, but targeting civilians directly is usually unethical (and violates the laws of armed conflict). It can be regulated in the US without violating freedom of speech rules because of the conduct/speech distinction.
1b. Firearms violence. Sucks. Esp when innocent people involved. Sucks less the firearms are used to defend the planet from invading aliens.
1c. Dubious content is not as harmful as terrorism obviously and I don't think the government should regulate the display of most porn, violence, vulgar language, but there are outer limits. Essentially current black letter law makes sense. It might be annoying or not your kind of thing, but better than giving a government the power to censor these areas--too big an excuse to censor more.
2. Not sure what this question means. Rephrase?

I am saying that there are some people in the world (we take the case of the US, for argument's sake) who abuse their civil liberties, such as public drug abuse (hard and/or soft), public nudity, bestiality, and property damage/theft (GTA series ring a bell?). I was specifically asking the host of this AMA what is their stance on this matter, and if so, what could they do about it?

Sure, people can and sometimes will do bad things with any amount of freedom they're given. It's something we have to, to some degree, accept if we're going to live in a society that doesn't involve a huge amount of top-down repression.

It's absolutely important that we have laws against things that cause harm in society, but it's also important that we have some "freedom to…" to go with that "freedom from…".

On (1a): I'm not sure what the free speech issue you're raising is concerning terrorism. Terrorism itself is not a free speech issue, but rather a criminal issue. i.e., blowing something up, killing people, etc. can all be taken care of under appropriate criminal law. If the issue is talking about terrorism, or even advocating terrorism, I tend to fall in the camp of the best way to fight back against speech you don't like is with more speech, rather than seeking to censor speech. Censoring such speech rarely does anything helpful. At best, you just convince those people engaging in it that they're "onto something" since "the powers that be" are trying to suppress.

I tend to think that the world would be a better place if we did a lot more engagement in talking to people, rather than trying to silence them. Will we convince everyone? Of course not. But talking to people and having a discussion can often lead to a much better result. Censoring someone does little to suggest to them that their activities may be counterproductive.

(1b): Again, not sure how this is a free speech issue. Sorry.

(1c): This is one of the key "free speech" questions that gets discussed quite often, and it's one where I think that there are much better solutions out there than direct, mandated, government censorship.

Three key non-governmental solutions to these issues are (1) technology (2) parenting and (3) education (though, all three overlap in some areas). Technology is getting pretty good at preventing things like spam. Also, I don't know about you, but I can't remember ever running into accidental pornography. Maybe it's just the way I surf, however.

But, really, the bigger issue is that with parenting and education, we can teach people who to properly react when they come upon content that they don't understand/find offensive/scary/dangerous. This is something that I fear we do a poor job of in society. We tend to try to hide reality from people, rather than admitting that it's there, that it's not all good, and that you need to learn how to deal with it. Parenting and education can and should provide kids with a level of digital street smarts that helps them cope when they suddenly come across content that might be inappropriate. It means teaching them that the world isn't always a great place, but that you can deal with it when you come across things. The other method, of simply trying to suppress it entirely will always fail to do that -- and then you're left with people who are ill-prepared for when they inevitably encounter such content.

As for question (2) on "the abuses of freedom the common people are exercising" I'm afraid that I'm not sure I understand the question fully, though I'm happy to dig in if you'd like to post a follow up.